If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

We're aware the forums aren't working as they should, and we're working on it. Our apologies. In the meantime, you can discuss with others on the Onyx Path Discussion Group on Facebook.

Announcement

Collapse

No announcement yet.

Current Official Stance on the Monotheist Religion in the World (Possible spoilers)

Current Official Stance on the Monotheist Religion in the World (Possible spoilers)

02-12-2018, 03:24 PM

i am a backer of scion 2nd ed, and currently reading scion origin. the way the setting of the World is described i ended very confuse about the monotheist religion...Is there an official stance on those religions from the developers ?
My reflexion was : if Gods and scions of old religions are widely known to exist in the setting, how did the monotheist religions gained precedence without the God(s) being knowned and without scions. For me, it seems impossible without clear (i mean on par with old gods ) manifestations of the one monotheist god.
I know it is a touchy subject to say the least. but it is a game about mythic gods and heroes so i had an impression of inbalance in the setting. on one side Gods and scions and on the other side...well nothing except maybe faith.
Don't know if i am clear, and plz don't flame me for wondering

Basically, the position is that they exist and have been active. However, there have been a lot of discussion on here about their inclusion/exclusion and it has been a minefield. So, for now, the descriptions we have are about it.

However, I think there's been some talk of including a Canaanite (if not specifically Abrahamic) pantheon sometime in the future.

Comment

The suggestion in the text and from writer comments is that the monotheistic religions don't deny that polytheistic gods exist, just that they don't meet their singular definition of the omniscient, omnipresent true God. Note that some Pantheons (like the Orisha) would completely agree with them on that point.

Many people in the World make sacrifices to Aesir or Teotl, etc, before taking a test on Tuesday, and go to Church on Sunday, and few blink at any contradiction.

I assume Christianity's spread through Europe allowed for more keeping of the "gods of your forefathers" than in real history, provided you ALSO accepted Christ as your Savior. This puts Jews historically in the position of being more othered in Christian Europe than the Pagans, since they by definition couldn't accommodate Christ with their existing belief system, so a more henotheistic Christianity more tolerant of paganism does not rewrite the history of the European antisemitism.

Similarly atheists acknowledge these powerful beings exist, but not that said powerful beings are inherently deserving of worship simply because they're powerful.

Comment

The suggestion in the text and from writer comments is that the monotheistic religions don't deny that polytheistic gods exist, just that they don't meet their singular definition of the omniscient, omnipresent true God. Note that some Pantheons (like the Orisha) would completely agree with them on that point.

Many people in the World make sacrifices to Aesir or Teotl, etc, before taking a test on Tuesday, and go to Church on Sunday, and few blink at any contradiction.

I assume Christianity's spread through Europe allowed for more keeping of the "gods of your forefathers" than in real history, provided you ALSO accepted Christ as your Savior. This puts Jews historically in the position of being more othered in Christian Europe than the Pagans, since they by definition couldn't accommodate Christ with their existing belief system, so a more henotheistic Christianity more tolerant of paganism does not rewrite the history of the European antisemitism.

Similarly atheists acknowledge these powerful beings exist, but not that said powerful beings are inherently deserving of worship simply because they're powerful.

This is basically a simpler and more eloquent version of what I was going to say.

1 like

Comment

Islam is a more complicated subject and we do not have remotely enough information for me to comment. Even putting aside the real world events and social context that make addressing the subject difficult, it’s theologically harder to translate into this fictional setting.

Chrstianity’s most central defining premise that defines a Christian is salvation through Christ.

Judaism’s most central defining premise that defines a Jew is cultural identity as a member of the Tribe of Israel.

Islam’s most central defining premise that defines a Muslim hinges first and foremost on absolute monotheism (“No God but God”). It can’t adjust to henotheism and still be recognizable as Islam the way Judaism and Christianity theoretically could.

Comment

Similarly atheists acknowledge these powerful beings exist, but not that said powerful beings are inherently deserving of worship simply because they're powerful.

Worth noting, under this definition, you can easily have atheist Scions - especially if your parent pantheon are a bunch of assholes... I say while trying not to look directly at Olympus....

(I can even think of two cult-tv-series from the 90s that work on this premise with a Son of Zeus, and a Chosen of Ares gone-rogue, who more often than not are in the position of protecting mortals from their asshole Pantheon)

Comment

When scholars of religion have tried to figure out why certain traditions have survived and spread more than others, they've come up with a few ideas that could apply to the World:

1. Scripture-based religions are generally portable. (J.Z. Smith's utopian and locative distinction.) So long as you have your book, you can practice it anywhere, which makes it really appealing to empires that have to incorporate a lot of other cultures.
2. Monotheism can be a mediating influence. (Max Weber.) The larger a territory you have to control, the fewer distinct characteristics your gods have. It's okay to have thirty versions of Zeus when you're thirty city-states, but if you become an empire, you file down the rough edges until you're left with a fairly generic deity with few distinctive myths. Our monotheistic religions do that well.
3. For the ordinary person, monotheism reduces a lot of daily stress. (E.R. Dodds' pagan age of anxiety.) If your life has taken a sudden bad turn, monotheism lets you ascribe that to one cause instead of trying to work out which of a dozen gods you might have offended.

Demonstrations of divine power don't factor into any of these, since the first two are primarily political, and the third is psychological.

7 likes

Comment

Islam is a more complicated subject and we do not have remotely enough information for me to comment. Even putting aside the real world events and social context that make addressing the subject difficult, it’s theologically harder to translate into this fictional setting.

Chrstianity’s most central defining premise that defines a Christian is salvation through Christ.

Judaism’s most central defining premise that defines a Jew is cultural identity as a member of the Tribe of Israel.

Islam’s most central defining premise that defines a Muslim hinges first and foremost on absolute monotheism (“No God but God”). It can’t adjust to henotheism and still be recognizable as Islam the way Judaism and Christianity theoretically could.

​On the other hand? Islamic mythology does have the Djinn, which Islam considers to be either fallen angels or some kind of third race created by Allah. And just like Buddhism, Islamic mythology acknowledges that Djinn aren't inherently evil and can, in fact, convert to Islam and lead righteous lives.

​It's not impossible to imagine that Islam solved the polytheism problem the same way: the "other gods" aren't gods at all. They're fallen angels or some other creatures created by Allah, who arrogantly assume themselves to be as great or greater than Allah. They just need to be shown the error of their ways and made to return to Allah's service.

​As to how this affects how followers of the other gods living in or near Muslim communities? If the "pagans" are strong enough, the Muslims kind of have no choice but to tolerate them. If they aren't? Islam had no problem subjugating Christians and Jews in their territory and forcing them to pay extra taxes in exchange for not being killed or driven out. A similar arrangement would likely be in place in this case.

"We have done the impossible, and that makes us mighty."
Captain Malcolm Reynolds

5 likes

Comment

​On the other hand? Islamic mythology does have the Djinn, which Islam considers to be either fallen angels or some kind of third race created by Allah. And just like Buddhism, Islamic mythology acknowledges that Djinn aren't inherently evil and can, in fact, convert to Islam and lead righteous lives.

​It's not impossible to imagine that Islam solved the polytheism problem the same way: the "other gods" aren't gods at all. They're fallen angels or some other creatures created by Allah, who arrogantly assume themselves to be as great or greater than Allah. They just need to be shown the error of their ways and made to return to Allah's service.

I generally agree with this assessment... it reminds me of Samirah al-Abbas, Scion of Loki and also devout Muslim in Rick Riordan's Magnus Chase series who had no problems working for the Aesir while staying true to her religion. Also, while we don't actually know anything about her yet (so she may not actually be Muslim), the signature Scion of Oya Iyansan is Omolara Muhammed. And the Orisha seem perfectly willing to agree that they are not Gods, just creations of the One True God.

4 likes

Comment

Yeah, I agree with that, I was more thinking about the initial spread of Islam being allowed by pantheons and Scions active in the World. As I said with Christianity, it's plausible if the Church in Europe took a henotheistic position and let believers keep their other gods as long as they accepted Christ as their Savior. But that doesn't work with Islam and its history. What were Hubal & co up to when Mohammed cast their idols out of the Kaaba?

Comment

Islam’s most central defining premise that defines a Muslim hinges first and foremost on absolute monotheism (“No God but God”). It can’t adjust to henotheism and still be recognizable as Islam the way Judaism and Christianity theoretically could.

That suggests something like actual Medieval and early modern Europe's take on the gods. Milton believed the Greek, Norse, Irish, Egyptian, ect, gods existed. He believed they were either demons or faeries. Islam in the real world accepts the existence of djinni, they are mentioned and said to be real in the Koran. So I assume Muslims would see the "gods" as deluded djinni.

Comment

Yeah, I agree with that, I was more thinking about the initial spread of Islam being allowed by pantheons and Scions active in the World. As I said with Christianity, it's plausible if the Church in Europe took a henotheistic position and let believers keep their other gods as long as they accepted Christ as their Savior. But that doesn't work with Islam and its history. What were Hubal & co up to when Mohammed cast their idols out of the Kaaba?

A thing that I think is going to have to be implicit is the positioning of gods in mortal conflicts. Where were the Manitou when America was colonized? Or the Teotl, or the gods of any other people that were massacred? You'd have to work out an entire alternate history, and I don't think that's in the vein of what they want to do.

But sexually.

Comment

A thing that I think is going to have to be implicit is the positioning of gods in mortal conflicts. Where were the Manitou when America was colonized? Or the Teotl, or the gods of any other people that were massacred? You'd have to work out an entire alternate history, and I don't think that's in the vein of what they want to do.

In cases of direct clashes of civilizations like that, I assume that different Pantheons acted as a check on each other; but at the same time, the fact that more of native faiths survive in the Americas than in our reality I think does speak to the actions of heroic Scions of those Pantheons pushing back against European genocide.

The question arises then with the internal transition of Arabian culture from polytheistic to monotheistic, who was checking the Alihah against intervening to assert their own divinity?

If we accept, as is a central tenant of Islam, that Mohammed worshiped the same God as Abraham, one possibility is that it was the Primordial El, the progenitor of the Elohim, and the original central creator-deity of Judaic Henotheism (who the Midianite deity YHWH, god of the Exodus, aggressively merged himself with to achieve Primordial-status about a millennium earlier).

Comment

A thing that I think is going to have to be implicit is the positioning of gods in mortal conflicts. Where were the Manitou when America was colonized? Or the Teotl, or the gods of any other people that were massacred? You'd have to work out an entire alternate history, and I don't think that's in the vein of what they want to do.

In 1e these clashes also lead to, or were caused by clashes among dieties. I haven't seen any material to date that would confirm or deny that the same aproach has continued in 2e, but your best bet to find out at the moment would be to check pantheon previews and see which pantheons theyre most hostile to.

I actually really liked the approach to monotheism in 1e, it's a conspiracy by mortals to control dieties via the manipulation of fate bindings. It works really well with the setting and means you dont have to remove or severely alter 4 of the worlds major religions.